Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Imanaka, Koyanagi and
Matsumoto, we will not sustain this rejection.
At page 4 of the answer, the examiner applies Imanaka to
the language of independent claim 1, identifying element 111a
in Imanaka as the claimed “second auxiliary track” and element
81a as the claimed “first connecting track.” The examiner
recognizes that Imanaka does not teach a second conducting
layer and a first auxiliary track, as claimed. The examiner
provides for this deficiency by citing Koyanagi for the
teaching that it was well known to provide multi-layers in a
thin-film magnetic head structure and by citing Imanaka’s
indication that Imanaka’s device is applicable to thin-film
magnetic heads having a coil of a multi-layer structure.
The examiner then contends that it would have been
obvious to have a second conducting layer and a first
auxiliary track arranged in a similar fashion as the first
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007